4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 10893
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1938) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1939. To: mininggold (#1937)
You are taking published "data", filtering it and forming your own opinion from it just like everyone else here.

Nope. What I am taking is VERIFIABLE data and then processing it.
Most of what you Moonbats have been forthing on about is wholly UNverfiable and in some case are just outright lies...e.g. the final report blames jet fuel for melting steel and that the buildings pancaked.
If you read some of my responses today you will see that I responded to a post by 2012 containing an article by Steven Jones in which he accuses NIST of ignoring the vital role played by the core support in WTC.
My rebuttal was an article co-authored by that same Steven Jones [he got top billing, btw] in which he SPECIFICALLY LAUDED the NIST for identifying the vital role that the core played in WTC's support.

war posted on 2009-03-31 12:15:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1940. To: mininggold (#1937)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry

Like whom?

war posted on 2009-03-31 12:15:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1941. To: mininggold (#1937)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry

Like whom? My take on most of the Troofers is that they are in fact, NOT experts in what they are claining to be experts in. For the most part, if you aren;t a structural engineer, your opinion about the strcutural engineering is going to be fairly useless.

war posted on 2009-03-31 12:17:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1942. To: war, mininggold, Litus (#1940)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry
Like whom?

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 12:23:51 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1943. To: TwentyTwelve (#1942)
LOLOL at the doggy.
I still believe it's the government's job to make sense of their investigations and logically present them to the hard working tax paying citizens. If they don't know the answers then they should just say so and quite making up scenarios that often contradict each other.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 12:45:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1944. To: war (#1941)
Like whom? My take on most of the Troofers is that they are in fact, NOT experts in what they are claining to be experts in. For the most part, if you aren;t a structural engineer, your opinion about the strcutural engineering is going to be fairly useless.

So you are a structural engineer?

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 13:15:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1945. To: mininggold (#1944)
So you are a structural engineer?

Nope. I never claimed that I was but I do have a background in basic physics.
But, in re WTC, when I weigh engineering factors and I am given the opinion of some structural engineer and some by a pastor or a radio talk show host whom do you believe I am going to give more weight to? When I read the opinion of an engineer regarding what happened versus some Moonbat on the internet whose only retort is that I am a government shill, whom do you believe I will give more weight to?

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:29:53 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1946. To: TwentyTwelve (#1942)
Thinking of having polo's made?

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:30:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1947. To: mininggold, TwentyTwelve (#1943)
LOLOL at the doggy.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Rule Number Five
Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:32:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1948. To: war (#1933)
Actually, I just called a good buddy of mine who happens to be my wife's cousin and who is a decorated FDNY LT who was on site 9/11 and he says unequivocally that you are...
FULL OF SHIT....

Rule Number One
Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 13:37:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1949. To: war (#1709)
That guy is a moron...the left side of that building had CLEARLY begun to sag on the top left side in frame 30.

and that's relevant how in regard to wtc7 collapsing at free fall speed?
who's the moron now, mooooarooon?

Also. in the NIST guy in Part II states that it was the time that 7 disappeared behind the two buildings...that is NOT when it was done falling.

see reply above

More smoke and mirrors...

as you wish, mr. 95%er...

Forensic Metallurgy Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.
---------
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.
...
"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

do you agree with hopeful-of NIST-funding-biederman that the presence of sulphur in that steel from wtc7 which FEMA volunteer investigators could have inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel" resulting in "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese" may have been introduced by exposure to scary, scary acid rain (hahaha)????
(around here, when it rains, water comes right through the roof and runs right down the walls, but i figured nycitiers were more sophisticated and had overcome the raining-inside-a-building problem with ingenious engineering)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 13:42:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1950. To: TwentyTwelve (#1948)
Oddly missing is you supporting any of your Monnbat statements and theories when directly questioned.
Why is that?

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:42:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1951. To: war (#1950)
Oddly missing is you supporting any of your Monnbat statements and theories when directly questioned.
Why is that?

Don't blame me that you cannot comprehend what I have posted.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 13:44:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1952. To: war (#1950)
www.sportsnetwork.com/me rge/tsnform.aspx?c=sportsnetwork&page=horse/news/news.aspx?id=4223350
I'm not sure if you can bet the Derby Future Wager where you live; you might be able to do it online at TVG or somewhere. The morning line on Win Willy is 20- 1. The betting windows open at noon on Thursday through Sunday.

Fred Mertz posted on 2009-03-31 13:50:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1953. To: postpunk (#1949)
and that's relevant how in regard to wtc7 collapsing at free fall speed?

13odd seconds is not freefall speed. So, that's a non starter right there.

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:54:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1954. To: TwentyTwelve (#1951)
Don't blame me that you cannot comprehend what I have posted.

ROFLMAO...did...what you post, in the face of the overwhelming opinion of non- pastros and fat shortwave radio darlings, is INCOMPREHENSIBLE... But stil feel free to answer any of my questions. Start with why did STeven JOnes say that NIST got it right regarding core support and then turn around and accuse them of getting it wrong...

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:57:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1955. To: postpunk (#1949)
FEMA's report was a) interim and b) not official.

war posted on 2009-03-31 13:58:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1956. To: Fred Mertz (#1952)
Thanks...
WIN WILLY!!!!

war posted on 2009-03-31 14:00:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1957. To: war (#1956)
For the first time this year one can bet exactas in the Derby Future Wager. A friend of mine boxed two of his favorites in last month's Future Wager. I looked up the payout if he wins and it was $118 one way and $120 the other way; not bad on a $2 bet. Something to think about.

Fred Mertz posted on 2009-03-31 14:17:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1958. To: war, postpunk (#1953)
13odd seconds is not freefall speed.

It fell at 6.8 seconds, not 13....

litus posted on 2009-03-31 14:31:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1959. To: TwentyTwelve, mininggold (#1942)
Too many qualified and respected in the industry
Like whom?

The foxes are guarding the other foxes.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 14:33:00 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1960. To: war (#1958)
It fell at 6.8 seconds, not 13....

Take note.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 14:34:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1961. To: christine (#1959)
The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

lol!

litus posted on 2009-03-31 14:36:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1962. To: litus (#1961)
;P

christine posted on 2009-03-31 14:38:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1963. To: christine (#1962)
This day in 1962

I'm not here if anyone asks. ;-)

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Rotara posted on 2009-03-31 14:41:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1964. To: litus (#1958)
It fell at 6.8 seconds, not 13....

Saturday, May 19, 2007
Steven Jones on WTC 7 Collapse: "We Really Screwed Up"
Admits WTC 7 collapse time was at least twice as long.
(BNN - May 19, 2007 - New York, NY) - In the first candid admission on record by a 9/11 Truth Movement leader of being wrong, Steven Jones (above, left) admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed.
Jones's admission comes on the heels of a debate on the Rob Bishop show last night when Jason Bermas (above, right), one of the amateur filmmakers responsible for the film, "Loose Change", became flustered when the question of the WTC 7 collapse time came up. Bermas was confronted with the CBS video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly showing it took over 13 seconds to collapse from beginning to end.
"That is a fantasy! I've looked at all the videos. WTC 7 collpased in 6.5 seconds, period!", Jason declared in a nervous voice.
Pat Curley, who participated in the debate last night and co-wrote with James Bennett the debunking of the film, "Loose Change", demonstrated conclusively that WTC 7 collapsed in over 13 seconds.
"The CBS video clearly shows that the East Penthouse collapsed first, followed by the West Penthouse and the rest of the structure. Between the beginning of the East Penthouse collapse and the beginning of the structure collapse, 7 seconds went by. The structure collapse then took an additional 6 - 7 seconds," Pat explained.
Bermas, visibly shaken, responded by completely dismissing the video evidence.
Pat pointed out that the 9/11 Truth Movement has inexplicably argued against its own controlled demolition theory for years.
"The CBS video demonstrates that internal collapses were taking place in WTC 7 before the entire structure fell. The 9/11 Truth Movement could have argued that bombs were going off inside of WTC 7 to weaken the structure so structure collapse could take place, just like internal explosives are set off to cause a structure collapse in real controlled demolitions. Instead, they adamantly argue that no internal collapse took place before the building collapsed. Isn't that strange?"
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.
Asked how his revelation would affect 9/11 Truth, Jones said it would enhance and strengthen it.
Jones said, "There is no question that bombs went off in WTC 7 to weaken the internal structure before the building came down. That is obvious from the video and why it took over 13 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse."

war posted on 2009-03-31 14:47:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1965. To: litus (#1958)
Architects and Engnieers for 9/11 Truth

I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?

war posted on 2009-03-31 14:53:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1966. To: war (#1953)
13odd seconds is not freefall speed. So, that's a non starter right there.

true, "13odd seconds" is a duration, not a "freefall speed" which makes no sense because any instantaneous earth-bound velocity could be on some differential curve for free fall; more accurately free fall is an acceleration which the high school math teacher's presentation of wtc7's collapse made abundantly clear was achieved.
did it fly over your head like the glorious albatross taking flight, freeing you of your crushing ignorance?
how's that for a starter? if only in aid to relieve you of a feigned or real condition...

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 14:54:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1967. To: war (#1955)
FEMA's report was a) interim and b) not official.

thanks,
that doesn't answer the question

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 14:57:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1968. To: postpunk (#1966)
which makes no sense because any instantaneous earth-bound velocity could be on some differential curve for free fall

WHA...CHUCKLE....HUH?
"Free fall speed" is 32 feet per second per second or 10 meters per second squared FOR ANY OBJECT. There is no "differential curve" for free fall...

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:05:23 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1969. To: postpunk (#1967)
that doesn't answer the question

The question was why FEMA concluded something. They didn't conclude anything.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:06:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1970. To: war (#1968)
jokes are fun!
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:11:53 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1971. To: postpunk (#1970)
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

I just typed that.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1972. To: war (#1969)
the question concerned provenance of the sulfur that contributed to the eutectic reaction in steel retrieved from wtc7.
are you claiming none was found?

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1973. To: war (#1945)
Nope. I never claimed that I was but I do have a background in basic physics.
But, in re WTC, when I weigh engineering factors and I am given the opinion of some structural engineer and some by a pastor or a radio talk show host whom do you believe I am going to give more weight to? When I read the opinion of an engineer regarding what happened versus some Moonbat on the internet whose only retort is that I am a government shill, whom do you believe I will give more weight to?

A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. LOLOL

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1974. To: war (#1971)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:19:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1975. To: war (#1964)
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40
Received: March 17, 2008 | Revised: April 02, 2008

5. Essentially in Free Fall NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)— speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos” [3].

We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.) [13, 14] Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion. Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives. We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:21:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1976. To: war (#1969)
not conclusions, son, evidence

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:21:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1977. To: war (#1971)
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” [3].
Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:23:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1978. To: war (#1971)
only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1979. To: postpunk (#1974)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

Free fall speed has a direct correlation to the accelerative force of gravity...
You cannot claim that an object fell at free fall speed while also claiming that it did not accelerate as such.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1980 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40